Cool responses, BobP I think hit the right note on this one. Thank God I have the means to beat those outstanding odds against me. My head and my intuition is my winning system, and I found that it dosn't work for alot of people simply becuz one may not be able to relate. Depending on how you play and where you play at, is the system your going to use...and what system greatly helps your game, may greatly hurt anothers.

It's connected in some way or another

confirmation bias

"It is the peculiar and perpetual error of the human understanding to be more moved and excited by affirmatives than by negatives." --Francis Bacon

Confirmation bias refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one's beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one's beliefs. For example, if you believe that during a full moon there is an increase in admissions to the emergency room where you work, you will take notice of admissions during a full moon, but be inattentive to the moon when admissions occur during other nights of the month. A tendency to do this over time unjustifiably strengthens your belief in the relationship between the full moon and accidents and other lunar effects.

This tendency to give more attention and weight to data that support our beliefs than we do to contrary data is especially pernicious when our beliefs are little more than prejudices. If our beliefs are firmly established on solid evidence and valid confirmatory experiments, the tendency to give more attention and weight to data that fit with our beliefs should not lead us astray as a rule. Of course, if we become blinded to evidence truly refuting a favored hypothesis, we have crossed the line from reasonableness to closed-mindedness.

Numerous studies have demonstrated that people generally give an excessive amount of value to confirmatory information, that is, to positive or supportive data. The "most likely reason for the excessive influence of confirmatory information is that it is easier to deal with cognitively" (Gilovich 1993). It is much easier to see how a piece of data supports a position than it is to see how it might count against the position. Consider a typical ESP experiment or a seemingly clairvoyant dream: Successes are often unambiguous or data are easily massaged to count as successes, while negative instances require intellectual effort to even see them as negative or to consider them as significant. The tendency to give more attention and weight to the positive and the confirmatory has been shown to influence memory. When digging into our memories for data relevant to a position, we are more likely to recall data that confirms the position (ibid.).

Researchers are sometimes guilty of confirmation bias by setting up experiments or framing their data in ways that will tend to confirm their hypotheses. They compound the problem by proceeding in ways that avoid dealing with data that would contradict their hypotheses. For example, some parapsychologists used to engage in optional starting and stopping in their ESP research. Experimenters might avoid or reduce confirmation bias by collaborating in experimental design with colleagues who hold contrary hypotheses, as Richard Wiseman (skeptic) and Marilyn Schlitz (proponent) have done.* Individuals have to constantly remind themselves of this tendency and actively seek out data contrary to their beliefs. Since this is unnatural, it appears that the ordinary person is doomed to bias.

I don't believe in "systems" per se. What I do believe in is that you can selectively; methodically pick your numbers in such a way that you can grind them together for "maximum effect". What you need is a record of past draws and a flowchart with which to pick your numbers and go for it. In the case of picking #s for all states...it isn't hard to swallow that in some instances that the numbers chosen from one individual may result in numbers being drawn in a state a thousand miles from the state in which that individual may reside.

For me...this is what works: a flowchart of all past draws and a wheel to spin for maximum effect. I believe in time that I will win with this method. No software that I know of consistenly provides winners on a steady basis.If that was the case..then we would all have it. St.Germain.

When I think of systems, I ususally don't consider an intuitive as appplicable. It's not reproducible by anyone,it has no structure, and there's nothing to analyze ( to figure out what you can try, to do bettter next time).

I'm not putting the method down. If it's working for you, by all means, use it. However, it's not really what I looking for in this thread.

I have one more observation to add to this post. Most of us, myself included, skip from one system to the next, over and over again, looking for that elusive "perfect winning system". Just like anything else in life, I believe that if we spent all or most of our time continuing to work on our "favorite" system, win or lose, we would all learn how to tweak our chosen systems to the point where we would know it intimately and know what to look for daily in order to hit as often as possible. Those of us who have been "system hopping" are never going to be consistent in hitting. Practice makes perfect. Just my two cents worth.

I have one more observation to add to this post. Most of us, myself included, skip from one system to the next, over and over again, looking for that elusive "perfect winning system". Just like anything else in life, I believe that if we spent all or most of our time continuing to work on our "favorite" system, win or lose, we would all learn how to tweak our chosen systems to the point where we would know it intimately and know what to look for daily in order to hit as often as possible. Those of us who have been "system hopping" are never going to be consistent in hitting. Practice makes perfect. Just my two cents worth.

Shawn

Totally agree.... I'm guilty of this as well. There have been times I've found pretty tight patterns that hit rarely but provide very few numbers. Of course as soon as I switch to another method I see my previous system hit.

Find a system that hits all the numbers and stick with it (even if it's 1 out of 50 times).

I love this thread! I have been playing all kinds of systems for years and, ya know, when you hit, you hit. Sometimes its spooky, I get an eerie feeling about some numbers and those will hit. I know its crazy, but my right hand itches when I win and my left when I lose. Now I was a philosophy major and I know that it is completely illogical (Cartesian, cogito, ergo sum????). Be that as it may, I feel that whatever system "calls" to you do it. But also don't be afraid to try something new. Statistics have it that many of those who play birthdays, etc., have least of a chance of ever hitting. May be true, I have played my and my husband's birthdays for 14 years and they have never hit in one game. Doesnt' mean they won't but -- mix it up baby!!

Totally agree.... I'm guilty of this as well. There have been times I've found pretty tight patterns that hit rarely but provide very few numbers. Of course as soon as I switch to another method I see my previous system hit.

Find a system that hits all the numbers and stick with it (even if it's 1 out of 50 times).

Wow! Now I too am guilty in this outcome as well!

Faith and absolute dedication is thee ticket.

But one thing here is that when I come across someone else's system, I check it out and return to the one when I had first won. Then I add whatever I have learned to my original system.

Now I have learned something new today and it is a favorite number that I have employed to my system that has improve its outcome in predicting what we all are looking for........ and that's thee almighty great win!

Well to all of thee LP players out there....... sharing secrets isn't all that bad...... it's all good!